I actually agree with this
My gripe with 2S6 has always been about it’s performance relative to other SPAA, and how the 0.3 BR gap to Roland SAMs for example is way too small for the huge capability gap.
First step would be to move several SPAAs down in BR, but this doesn’t really solve the issue of most nations lacking comparable SPAA options for their 10.7 lineup. New systems would need to be added, similar in capability to 2S6
I mean its really the balance between CAS and SPAA, since CAS requires a lot more SP they should be superior, although I do agree, they are over BR’d.
ADATS tracking system is superior as it gets target lead in IR tracking mode.
Gepard 1A2 changed this as its main shell was FAPDS, which gaijin has refused to add at all. So there is at least one example.
Actually insane quote. Western anti air systems are the best in the world, also having an spaag with both cannons and missiles is not considered to be a good idea as anymore china 625 spaag only has missiles in the export model for example.
There edited to make it clear what i meant
How so?
Unsubstantiated claim that is entirely irrelevant to my statement #1
Unsubstantiated claim #2
All Type 625s have a cannon…?
Both the CS/A5 and Type 625 are entirely built around a 30x165mm cannon. It was quite literally made from the AK-630, and to insinuate that there are variants without it when China is basing entire SPAA systems around the 630 and their 730 is stupid.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Really? Did you not say that the export model doesn’t have a primary cannon? Because I remember you saying this:
Which is, as far as is seen, made up off the top of your head.
I find it hilarious that you take weasel words to the next level by saying “every country uses western AA systems”, whereas the “west” is effectively every country in the world.
America has VERY few anti-air systems. Almost all of them were designed to be a generic platform with upgradeable weaponry, instead of a growing platform with multiple variations of weaponry.
Train the crew on missile operations and gun operations? It’s a condensed weaponry training either way, and has already been done with other systems like the LAV-AD and M6.
Even then… What would you need to train? A large majority of uses of cannons on an SPAA are for ground combat, whether it’s for suppression via fire or direct combat against other vehicles or troops.
What?
Nope i said that only the export model for the 625 uses missiles. The domestic version only has the cannon
Dont put words into my mouth,
M6 is old, and the lavad is a different system all together. It uses manpads
Can you run that by me again, this time in English?
As for the second, slightly more intelligible sentence…What export version? All models of the 625 and CS/SA5 use the exact same configuration on a relatively unchanged turret.
I’m not, I’m interpreting what you said as you clearly don’t have the education to speak your mind.
Yeah, and both were few and far between due to their exorbitant costs. Almost all missile systems are limited to the Stinger alone due to a lack of succeeding G-A missiles, and with DIVAD being a complete and utter failure there was almost no strive for SPAA systems.
The AGDS was quite possibly the one and only closest thing to a good SPAA, but was far beyond the funds that America had to put towards a new system. Especially after development of the ADATS led to a bust with nothing to show for but the missiles, they were only ever planned to be put on a later project… Which had its program cancelled due to price and logistical concerns.
In fact quite the opposite, I believe some self used PLA ones had radar removed, and had only the cannon for anti drone exercise, maybe they are modular, do you know anything?
I know that every model of the Type 625 and CS/SA5 use a 30mm rotary cannon, can you give me some sort of substantiation on a variant designed without its main cannon that it was… Yknow, built around?
Why did you edit my name onto this quote? This is Zannafrancy12’s quote from post 111
Oh no I didn’t mean it cause I quoted his quote from your post, I think it is a bug sorry didn’t check.
I assume that they have it by default, none has been spotted without a cannon, although operating without a radar would suggest IRST?
I see, I’ve seen some people try to edit other peoples’ names into quotes, and I thought that was your intention. Sorry.
Yes, it’s operated entirely via IRST. Only the LD-2000/3000 use a tracking radar, while the CS/SA5 and Type-625 both use infrared tracking to fire at targets and cue MANPADS (CS/SA5) or beam-riding missiles (Type-625)
thanks, might find out a bit more at this year’s airshow, said a new jet coming as well.
No, it might not be the best spelled reply but its perfectly understandable.
they dont, the large majority of 625s meant for domestic use dont have the missiles for the reason i said above.
considering ive never eve nsuggested that most countries use western systems you seem to be very bad at interpreting english.
all true and interesting, but its not relevant to the point i was making.
not to mention that SPAAs in their traditional form were and still are broadly considered outdated, now there are definetly reasons to develop new systems but they arent going to be very similar to traditional spaa, as we can already see with the new leonardo monstrosity.
What meaning does
Hold?
What export model? The CS/SA5?
All CS designations are Chinese export models. This here is the export variation of the Type-625:
I don’t know about you, but I notice one GLARING detail that happens to conflict with your statements…
All Type-625s have missile mounts for their FB-10s or FN-6s.
All of these here can be seen with FN-6s
Here are more models with FN-6s
Here is a model with FB-10s
Here is a model with FB-10s
Your words do not add up with reality
Really?
I’m starting to think your vocabulary and intelligibility isn’t the problem.
The Pantsir isn’t anywhere near outdated. It still holds the same cannons used by the 2K22M for extensive ground-ground engagements, as well as a new radar with 360x90dg search zones and quadruple the previous target tracks.
Not to mention 23Я6s…or the Pantsir-M, which dwarfs the Chinese Type-625’s weaponry and engagement range.
The Leonardo monstrosity? What do you mean there are “definitely reasons to develop” things like this? It’s effectively useless beyond disrupting the operations of small surveillance drones such as the RQ-7 and RQ-21.This isn’t an air defense system, it’s an electronic warfare vehicle. It doesn’t destroy fast-moving aircraft, munitions, and helicopters… It’s a glorified shotgun that works out to 5km at the MOST.
=)
Timestamp. If something is unclear to you, select the English subtitles translation.
Pantsir vs E95 drone
Oh boy! A 70kg drone from multiple kilometers away!
I sure do wonder what these volume-of-fire cannons will do!
The very first missile shot at the drone downed it. What does this have to do with my statement?
Don’t be fooled by its low mass—this is normal for a target drone. The fact is that four anti-aircraft systems failed to shoot down a relatively large (2.5-meter wingspan) slow-moving target, flying at 200 km/h at a short distance from the anti-aircraft systems. I think this perfectly illustrates your opponent’s point that ‘SPAAs in their traditional form were and still are broadly considered outdated.’
Real combat usage has shown that the Pantsir has issues not only with its guns, but that’s a topic for another discussion.
